https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
--- Comment #17 from dhowells at redhat dot com <dhowells at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Paolo Bonzini from comment #16) > > ... > > it should be using BTSQ not BTSL > > Why? Since bts adjust the memory address according to the bit number, btsl > and btsq are entirely the same instruction. I suppose that's fair - the actual implementation is entirely up to the arch. Should Jakub's optimisation patch be fixed to generate BT?L rather than BT?Q instructions?
